REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)
REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
YORK SOUTH BY-ELECTION
Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I know there are those who will not be overjoyed at what I am about to bring forward as a point of order, but there are those of us who have listened with some chagrin when members such as the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) have ridiculed my leader for sitting up in the gallery. I want to tell my friend that a week Monday, that fellow who sits in the Speaker's gallery that he used to poke fun at will be joining me over here.
I might tell the member for Niagara Falls, since he has been so critical, that with 140 polls counted Mr. Rae has 8,998 -- or 9,000, give or take two votes -- Mr. Nunziata has 7,000, and the Progressive Conservatives are way down at 3,600. That is just an indication of things to come. On a more serious note, I am sure that all members of this House will take pleasure in welcoming as the newest member to this august body the new member for York South and the leader of the New Democratic Party, Bob Rae.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I know the leader of the third party is taking some pleasure in this. As the member for Sudbury East said, we did ridicule the leader of the New Democratic Party for sitting in the lobby. In the future, we will be able to ridicule him sitting in the House.
As the members know, we are engaging in this debate tonight with the unanimous consent of the House leaders. It was suggested that I mention to the House that we ask unanimous consent for the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. W. Taylor), the Solicitor General, who was speaking and who adjourned the debate, to be allowed to continue in the debate upon his return.
It is suggested that the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) be allowed to continue and that the member for Simcoe Centre be allowed to partake in the debate in the next rotation.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: As a private member and relating to the private members business this afternoon, I thought the House leader of the New Democratic Party rose to apologize for the mixup they had in Bill 89 this afternoon. I was quite disappointed when he did not give an explanation of how they fouled it up.
Mr. Martel: Could I respond, Mr. Speaker?
The Deputy Speaker: Do we really want to get into this?
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: No, come on; I want to tell the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel that was not a legitimate point of order.
Mr. Martel: I think it was a typographical error.
REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the fifth report of the standing committee on procedural affairs on agencies, boards and commissions.
Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker. I want to thank you for the opportunity --
Mr. Martel: When are you going to break away from the mafia-controlled group?
Mr. Gordon: It may take a little while. I am not going to put down francophones, though; I can tell you that.
Mr. Andrewes: Jim, Sudbury is in good shape. Let's leave it there.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for allowing me a few comments on the report, particularly as they relate to the Ontario Energy Board. I would first like to commend the committee for its work. We found the report helpful, as did the Ontario Energy Board. The committee made six recommendations regarding the energy board, and I would like to address these briefly.
The first recommendation relates to the apparently perennial question of whether the Ontario Energy Board should have the power to make binding decisions regarding Ontario Hydro rates, as it does with natural gas distributors.
Mr. Kerrio: Why, certainly they should. What is the use of having them there?
Mr. Andrewes: For the benefit of the member for Niagara Falls, this point was raised, I think, near the adjournment of the debate last week the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), who in his own inimitable way said the suggestion that this should happen just made common sense. I saw with respect that it may have that appearance, there are a number of similarities between the gas utilities and Ontario Hydro with regard to the review and setting of rates, but there are also very major differences, almost all of which derive from the Power Corporation Act.
The gas utilities are privately owned and controlled, being accountable to the public only through the OEB proceedings. Ontario Hydro, by contrast, is controlled by a board of directors, all of whom are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Hydro's board is itself a regulatory authority with a variety of powers conferred by the Power Corporation Act.
For example, section 95 empowers Hydro to approve and control the rates and charges for the supply of power by any individual corporation or municipal commission receiving power from Hydro. Section 93 confers on Hydro a wide mandate to regulate the design, sale and use of electrical hardware.
Mr. Martel: Do you agree with the member for Sudbury?
Mr. Andrewes: Of course I do. He spoke out strongly for the people of Sudbury, and you saw the results.
Major factors in the setting of Hydro's rates, such as its capital projects and its borrowing program, are specifically governed by the Power Corporation Act, which makes some of these matters subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Interjection.
Mr. Andrewes: That is not within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Energy Board.
The positive purposes of rate hearings are really twofold. First, they oblige Hydro to explain its rate proposals in public with an opportunity for interested members of the public to contribute to the process as interveners, as the member for Sudbury did, or simply as observers, as the members of the New Democratic Party did -- in my opinion, a very useful scrutiny.
Second, they result in a reasoned report on the rates proposal by an independent body knowledgeable in the area. Both the board of directors of Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Energy are informed by the Ontario Energy Board report.
8:10 p.m.
Mr. Martel: Phil, did you notice the government followed what I suggested, not what the guy who made the representation did?
The Deputy Speaker: Never mind the interjections. The member for Lincoln is speaking to the chair.
Mr. Andrewes: The second recommendation of the committee --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, order.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: No, I am standing.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I have a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: I am standing first.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: You have to recognize me.
The Deputy Speaker: No, I do not. I am the boss.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Okay, if you won't let me speak on the point of order --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Are you going to sit down, please?
Hon. Mr. Gregory: That is what I am suggesting to you.
The Deputy Speaker: I was going to bring to the attention of the member for Sudbury East that interjections are allowed but continuing long discourses are not. I am asking him to refrain from the continued long discourses.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order --
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, are you going to recognize me? You didn't recognize him?
The Deputy Speaker: I now recognize the member for Mississauga East.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I am really amazed how, when I rise on a point of order to bring this to your attention and you will not recognize me, the moment I sit down you recognize the member for Sudbury East. What is this?
The Deputy Speaker: Did I recognize you first?
Hon. Mr. Gregory: No, you did not.
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, I did.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: You did not recognize me.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Are you talking now before the member for Sudbury East?
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, if I might speak on my point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: Please do.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I will. Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I suggest to you that the member for Lincoln is speaking. If you cannot hear the interjections from across the way, we can. We cannot hear him for the yahoos over there. I suggest you draw their attention to this.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order --
The Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order?
Mr. Martel: Speaking to the point of order, first, I would suggest that my friend the Tory whip should withdraw that last --
The Deputy Speaker: Come on; point of order.
Mr. Martel: Speaking to his point of order. I do not think it is parliamentary to use terminology --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to remind the member for Sudbury East that as late as Tuesday night the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) used what I felt was unparliamentary language. However, because of the nature and time of the day I refrained from asking him to withdraw it. Under the circumstances, we will call it fair. Please make your point of order quickly.
Mr. Martel: I will make my point of order. If what the member who was speaking said, and I was listening very carefully, was that his colleague from Sudbury suggested they go before the Ontario Energy Board, I did not suggest that. What I suggested on March 30 was that the government intervene --
The Deputy Speaker: The member is stretching it.
Mr. Martel: Let me finish.
The Deputy Speaker: You are stretching it.
Mr. Martel: In a question to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) on March 30, I asked that the government intervene to protect the people of Sudbury and that is in fact what --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I know the member for Oshawa would agree with me that you are out of order. The member for Lincoln now has the floor.
Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am reminded --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a point of order from the member for Ottawa East.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have listened to the interchange taking place here. For the record, I must say I am extremely offended by the attitude of the whip, the member for Mississauga East. After all the years he has been here, I think he should know that when the Speaker is standing he has to be seated. That applies to everybody.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Thank you very much for drawing that to my attention.
The Deputy Speaker: With that in mind, the member for Lincoln. You made your point. The member for Ottawa East has another point of order.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I feel the House leader and the whip should understand that the Speaker is trying to act as objectively and fairly as possible. I am offended he would try to use the great weight he has within that party and that caucus to intimidate the Speaker. I find that very offensive.
Mr. Andrewes: I am reminded by my colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) that due to all the interruptions he missed the first 14 pages, so I am obliged to start again.
The second recommendation of the committee is for an automatic pass-through of city-gate natural gas price increases without a hearing by the Ontario Energy Board. We are now considering the possibility of a legislative amendment to achieve this end, but I would like to share with the House several thoughts on that subject.
We are still in a period of escalating energy prices. City-gate price increases comprise a significant portion of gas rate increases. The public deserves the assurance that all elements of energy costs are being scrutinized by a provincial agency even though the government does not have the power to control many of these costs.
Further, I believe the board has been able to adapt its procedures so that its consideration of these periodic external costs does not impose an undue regulatory burden on either utility or intervener.
Interjections.
Mr. Andrewes: Am I interrupting the conversations here, Mr. Speaker?
The Deputy Speaker: I would hesitate to mention who was doing the talking.
Mr. Andrewes: The third recommendation of the committee is that the Ontario Energy Board recover all of its operating costs from fees. The board now recovers from applicants all of its direct out-of-pocket expenditures on hearings, plus a portion of its overhead and indirect expense. The extent of the portion of overhead recovered can of course be varied, but all of this expense is part of the cost of service of the utility and therefore has a direct impact on rates.
In the current economic climate and with so many other impacts on gas costs, we would be reluctant to see a significant increase in these chargeback costs. As for the principle of the board's entire budget being recovered out of fees, I would be concerned that this might tend to make the board in a sense beholden upon the gas utilities.
The committee's fourth recommendation is that the Minister of Energy be authorized to ensure uninterrupted service in the event of a gas company ceasing its operations. This is something both the board and the minister would try to do. Continuity of service is of critical importance. I would point out that section 25 of the Ontario Energy Board Act requires that a distributor obtain leave of the board before discontinuing service to a consumer.
Section 26 confers on the Lieutenant Governor in Council a measure of control over corporate change such as merger on the part of a distributor. It is not apparent that any further authority is necessary or that further authority would be of any help if a distributor became bankrupt and the economics of the case made it impossible to attract another supplier.
The committee's fifth recommendation reflects a concern that after hours and on weekends there is no authority available in the gas utilities to order the reconnection of a customer who has been in default of his account. As I understand it, a defaulting customer might find the gas service cut off on a Friday. He might be ready to pay or settle on a Friday night or Saturday, but there would be no one available in the gas utility with the necessary authority until Monday.
The chairman of the OEB took this matter up with the three major gas utilities some months ago and reported back to the chairman of the committee by letter. His conclusion was that in the case of each major utility, off-hour authority is available to gas customers.
The sixth and last recommendation of the committee draws to my attention several recommendations of the McRuer report which should be implemented. We have them under consideration as part of a package of possible housekeeping amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act.
I conclude by again thanking the committee for its efforts.
8:20 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: I am looking for some direction from the House leader.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I think the undertaking was that we would continue with the section dealing with agencies, boards and commissions until we finish. Then we are going to do the Ombudsman, and I think we are reads to speak on that. We have had several speakers on the ABCs.
Mr. Martel: It was my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the government had at least two more speakers on this particular committee report. I suggest we stand the vote down until the member comes back, and move on to the next order of business.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martel: Could we stand this item down until the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) comes back and has his opportunity to speak, and just move on to the next order of business, which is the report of the Ombudsman? I think there was some consensus on that this afternoon.
The Deputy Speaker: I was under the impression that the debate was going to continue, that we were just waiting, but that may not be the case.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: We do have speakers on this particular item. I understand the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) want to speak. The first member is ready and we would like to continue with this debate.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. It is my error. I did not cast my eye over all members of the House.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to make an accommodation, because we had ensured that the minister would have an opportunity to speak. That is why I was prepared to stand this item over until he came and go on to the next order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We might have to do that yet.
Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, I would have been on my feet sooner, but I thought the speaking rotation was going to be as normal, and for this reason I was biding my time.
Being a new member of the standing committee on procedural affairs, I am not as familiar with the contents of this report as I would like to be. Unfortunately, the other night I was pinch-hitting for a colleague on the justice committee, dealing with Bill 179, and was not able to be in the House to listen to the debate that proceeded last Thursday. However, I would like to make a few remarks regarding the Ontario Board of Censors.
I understand that under the Theatres Act the board has the power to censor any film intended for public showing in Ontario and can cut or eliminate any portion of a film with the authorization of the submitter. It has the power to approve, prohibit and regulate the exhibition of any film, as well as advertising material. In addition to approving films and exercising censorship functions, the board also classifies films.
The board now classifies films in four categories: family, parental guidance, adult accompaniment and restricted. For each category there are statutory guidelines. The family film is one that the board considers appropriate for viewing by a person of any age. The film designated as parental guidance is one the board considers every parent should exercise his or her discretion in permitting his or her child to view. The film classified as adult accompaniment is one that is restricted to persons 14 years of age and older. Finally, the restricted film is one that is restricted to persons 18 years of age or older.
Making a decision to cut a portion of a film, or in rare instances to reject the film entirely, is based on what the board views as objectionable. It should be pointed out that the act in its amended form and under the regulations does not set out any specific standards to be applied to a film. Therefore, the board has absolute discretion in deciding what is objectionable and what is not.
In the absence of statutory standards, the board recently has developed a standard based on what the board perceives the community at large in Ontario finds objectionable on film. It has determined that the community objects to graphic or prolonged scenes of violence, torture or bloodletting, explicit portrayal of sex and violence, including rape, sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and so on.
I do not pretend to be an expert in this field, but I have had a long-term interest in what the censor board is doing and why it does it. Because of this interest, I have made several visits to the Ontario Board of Censors to view firsthand what the board censors and why it feels it needs to do so.
Being a free-thinking individual, living in a democratic society, I must admit that I did have reservations about censorship of any kind. However, after being an eyewitness to the actual censoring process, I never once left the board feeling that the films' artistic qualities had been ruined or that their continuity had been interrupted.
I realize it is very difficult to discuss this part of the report without getting into the philosophy of censorship. Sometimes I wonder if it just does not come down to a matter of the lesser of two evils. What I am referring to, and I am sure there is no member in this House ignorant of it, is the continuous escalation of violence in our society, particularly crimes of sexual violence.
We have only to look within the city limits of Toronto over the past year to see how many of this city's women have been victims of senseless, brutal sexual abuse and, in so many cases. death. None of us will forget the young shoeshine boy who never made it to his 10th birthday.
My common sense, therefore, must draw a parallel between the startling rise of violence in our society -- crimes of sexual violence, in particular -- and the way in which women and children are depicted in film. I might add the depiction of men in these films does nothing for the progress of civilization either.
Sex exploitation for commercial gain seriously undermines society's respect for the dignity and worth of individuals. If we are not exercising some form of censorship, are we not, as society's lawmakers, condoning, or appearing to condone, the mistreatment of these individuals? I am not suggesting that censorship will correct all of society's ills, but I have to believe that at least we, as legislators, will not be contributing to them.
To get back to the report: it recommends that the name of the Ontario Board of Censors be changed to the Ontario Classification and Censorship Board. The response from the ministry was as follows: the censor board has been a regular target of media criticism in recent years, particularly over the censorship function of commercially screened films as it appears to apply to community standards.
The issue of the board's name and the possibility of change to emphasize the board's film classification role is one of several being considered for the Theatres Amendment Act, expected to be introduced soon. It should be emphasized, however, that the body in question remains a censorship board and that fact should not be obscured behind a new name.
The second recommendation was that the censor board should incorporate, as part of its annual report, its assessment of community standards as it relates to the public exhibition of films, detailing how it arrived at the standards and the results of its studies.
The response to that was that we agree with the intent of the recommendation. Although the guidelines are not now incorporated in the annual report it is the current policy of the board to make public these guidelines and the methods of determining community standards and to distribute them wider throughout the province in theatres, schools and libraries.
The third recommendation was that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) ensure that the individuals appointed to the board come from a cross-section of the Ontario community.
The response from the minister was that we wholeheartedly agree. This policy is essential to ensure that the board of censors will truly reflect the standards of Ontario's diverse ethnic and cultural communities. Accordingly, the Theatres Amendment Act, expected to be introduced during this sitting, will include provisions for enlarging the board from its present 15 members to 25 members. I am assured that these new appointments will reflect Ontario's changing population.
I might just finish by saying that the surveys conducted by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations consistently have shown the majority of people are in favour of some form of film censorship. The government's position is one that clearly supports the present standards of censorship.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in the normal rotation of things, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak at this early time of the evening -- the shank of the evening, dare I say. I acknowledge the presence of my friend the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), with whom I shared this particular, special experience.
Mr. Shymko: The lone member from Oshawa.
Mr. Robinson: How is that? He must have managed not to support his leader so he could be here with us tonight. I am sure it will not be looked on that way,
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The members opposite have noted that we do not have full attendance in our caucus tonight. The reason for that, and I want to put it clearly on the record, is that we believe in fair play and we figure this is about an even match.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that was a valid point of order, but you got it in any way.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I can say without fear of contradiction that there may not be too many things that the member for Oshawa -- representing the multiple numbers of his caucus here tonight -- and I agree on, but the substantial recommendations of this particular report are probably one of those occasions when he and I are not too hard pressed to agree.
In addressing the report, I want to say at the outset that in my limited time here and regardless of how short or long it may continue from this point -- and I am not going to listen to various sides as to how long that may be tonight; that is not why I rose in my place -- I think it is fair to say that members on all sides will agree that of all the legislative exercises and all the debates and all the investigations and rhetoric in the course of any given week, month or session in this House, there are few more useful than the investigation and very close scrutiny of the agencies, boards and commissions appointed by this government.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Robinson: I am particularly pleased that I am going to have a lot of assistance with my remarks tonight, something I have not always enjoyed in the past.
An hon. member: Or in the future.
Mr. Robinson: Or in the future, I am reminded as well.
As we look at the report itself, it is interesting to note the variety, the numbers and the types of agencies that the standing committee on procedural affairs chose to address for its last review. The report is the substance and subject of this review, and there is a minority report dealing with the matter of the Ontario Board of Censors.
I was particularly interested last week to hear the comments of the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton). I know the comments are shared by the member for Oshawa because, with the member for Hamilton Mountain, he co-authored that minority report.
Mr. Gillies: Lots of short words.
Mr. Robinson: I am going to ignore that one. It is interesting and it is important that this House recognizes whether the question is censorship or not censorship; whether the question, as the member for Oshawa so eloquently said last week, is a matter of what an individual has the right to select to view or not to select to view; or whether the state or the individual ultimately will have the privilege of deciding.
I think that what the member for Hamilton Mountain has reflected in the minority report attached to the board of censors section came very close to the real issue when he talked about what effect censorship would have on the issue and whether the issue was "clipping celluloid," as he put it, or whether it was the production of what was clipped.
With him and with the member for Oshawa, I can agree to a large extent on that point. Simply removing an example of child pornography, of violence or of exploitation from a copy of a film -- except in the view of the public and except for public viewing, if I may -- does not really remove the problem, the sin or the stigma created by the act of filming that particular segment.
But I do not know how effectively one addresses that problem if it is not commenced by snipping the celluloid. It is fine to talk about the federal responsibility -- and I do not want to upset my friends across the way, because they do not like us to talk about federal responsibility over here -- but we all agree that there is increasingly a need to enlarge the role --
Mr. Bradley: What would you do without the federal government to blame?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: They sure give us lots of things to blame them for.
The Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the Speaker.
Interjections.
Mr. Robinson: I will wait, Mr. Speaker. In case there is anything worth responding to, I do not want not to hear it. But since there was nothing on that round, I will simply continue with the remarks I was making.
I think we all agree that obscenity as defined under the Criminal Code of Canada is indeed the area where of necessity there may be the ultimate power, the ultimate tightening up to prevent the act of what is obscene for viewing and what is not. But if we do not under the existing regulations --
Mr. Bradley: What is obscene is the way you treat the opposition in this House.
Mr. Robinson: It is interesting, but I will not respond to that one either. I will keep on going, and I am sure the member for St. Catharines will improve as the night wears on, even if I do not.
Mr. Bradley: Bob Runciman knows.
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Robinson: And he had no response either; so I will continue. We can take as long as we need.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we should be dealing with the Ombudsman's report. The member has nothing to say.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has the floor, speaking to the report.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recognize that I am, in my own modest way and despite the interruptions from across the floor, trying to deal word for word in substance with the report that is before us tonight.
Mr. Gillies: They have the Nunziata blues tonight.
Mr. Robinson: If, in fact, at this point --
Mr. Bradley: Do you still like Paul Cosgrove?
Mr. Gillies: Let's have Nunziata of your nonsense.
Mr. Robinson: If, in fact, at this point --
Mr. Breaugh: Keep up the interjections. You have quite a good track record.
Mr. Robinson: I have said this 86 times without getting beyond "if, in fact, at this point."
If, in fact, at this point -- I will try one more time -- the federal government is not going to recognize its responsibility and make those necessary amendments to the Criminal Code --
Mr. Shymko: They never have.
Mr. Robinson: I say to my friend, don't help me.
Mr. Boudria: You don't need the opposition. You have all you want on your own side.
Mr. Robinson: I have all the friends I need over here; the member is absolutely right. I thank the member for Prescott-Russell for that timely comment.
If they are not prepared at this time to make the necessary amendments to the Criminal Code that will prevent that segment of the industry from thriving or from coming to this country at all, I think it is incumbent on us as the second tier of government in this area to do whatever we can in our own way to try to eliminate the problem. I agree with the members of the third party that simply clipping the celluloid is not going to remove the problem of child pornography.
But I suggest, father of a young family as I am, that by leaving it in and leaving it openly selective, we are simply creating a market for an appetite. I think we in this House can all look back at the past 20 years and see how films have developed, at how there are things in movies each and every week that were certainly not acceptable 20 years ago that have become acceptable now. I suggest that this is in no small measure because we as a society have been groomed to allow them to become acceptable.
I think it is the same thing in the area of the Ontario Board of Censors and the things they are removing. Critical comments were made about the out-takes, and the opposition again criticized the fact that the out-takes had all been strung together and, in a very shocking, forceful way, they were shown to the members of the procedural affairs committee who were reviewing the agency. Some would say that this was done deliberately to shock the majority of the committee into retaining the status quo.
I do not think this is the case. I do not think the member for Oshawa believes this is the case. I believe that he was objective, as were other members of the committee, and that he looked at those one by one, analysed their content and their impact in the context of another film and came to the conclusion that collectively they were abhorrent and individually they were unacceptable.
8:40 p.m.
Because of that unacceptability, because the Ontario Board of Censors does not want to create a market and does not want to allow under this government the sensation of the public to become less sensitive to those issues, to become more readily willing to accept those issues, such as violence and depravity, that are contained in many more films that are available in the commercial market today, the committee as a whole made the recommendation to continue to support, with some amendment, the overall mandate of the censor board to maintain its censorship function.
The committee did not do that without attempting to look at how certain modifications might be made to the board to continue to make it relevant relative to its role in Ontario.
One of the hardest things to define when looking at the composition of that board is, as recommended on page 6 of the report, that the board should incorporate as part of its annual report its assessment of community standards in relation to the public exhibition of films, detailing how it arrived at that standard and the results of that study.
A greater responsibility than simply viewing and classifying films, determining that certain parts of a particular film, or a whole film as has happened in very rare instances, may not be acceptable for public viewing is how the board defines community standards.
The member for Oshawa will recall that we had a lengthy debate with the chairman of that board on what community standards are now, what they had come from, and where they might be in the future. That is reflected in the next recommendation in the report, that the minister ultimately responsible for that board, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, should ensure that those individuals appointed to the board come from a cross-section of the Ontario community.
The individuals appointed to the board should not simply reflect the opinion of the big city or, conversely, that of the rural community or of the north, but should provide that cross-section of opinion. I think we will find as the membership and the composition of the board are changed, as more people are appointed to it, perhaps to see fewer films per year, that we will have a greater cross-section of opinion than we have enjoyed previously.
I believe the role of the board will remain vital. I do not like censorship. I do not think anybody likes censorship, but until the federal government comes to grips with its responsibility to provide a greater definition of obscenity under the Criminal Code, then it is a necessary part of the function in Ontario.
I want to move on to the second agency reviewed by the procedural affairs committee the last time out, the Ontario Police Commission. We have had an incident in Metropolitan Toronto, a meagre few days ago now, where another officer doing his duty became the victim of violence; I dare say he became the victim of violence by the use of his own weapon, which makes it even more critical.
The Ontario Police Commission, if it is going to fulfil a vital role in the Ontario police community, must continue to offer an overall, very high standard of guidance for police protection, police conduct and police training right across the province.
As we listened to the debate last week, I was particularly intrigued by the comments of my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), who is I see with us again tonight and who no doubt, with his usual attention, will hear what I have to say about his remarks.
I was particularly taken when the honourable member talked about visible minorities on the Metropolitan Police Force. As a member from Metropolitan Toronto, I equally share his concern that since we do have such a multicultural mosaic, such a great combination of ethnic backgrounds in this city, there should be some measure of equal representation on the police force. But that is not really the issue --
Mr. Bradley: We're looking for big things out of you people on the public accounts committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Try to avoid the interjections.
Mr. Robinson: It was not directed at me, Mr. Speaker, but I will gladly yield to the member for St. Catharines if he wants to discuss the affairs of the public accounts committee this evening. I do not really know what that has to do with this, but if he is bored and I cannot hold his attention, perhaps he would like to come closer; in fact, perhaps he would like to cross the floor to address his remarks more appropriately over here.
Mr. Bradley: That would be the only reason I'd cross the floor.
Mr. Robinson: I want to say to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that in my part of Metropolitan Toronto, the eastern part, where our community is multicultural as well but perhaps to a lesser extent than the core, I do not know how one would bring a measure of sensibility to the Metro police organization by simply including visible minorities in the force itself.
Under the Police Act and under the collective agreement between the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and the board of commissioners of the Metropolitan Police Force, would one be able to assign those people where their visibility would have some positive impact?
I cannot see that we have a problem now. I do not want to start selecting groups for fear of the peril I may get into. However, I cannot honestly see what advantage there might be in having many more East Asians on the Metropolitan Police Force and then assigning them to areas where there is no particular East Asian content in population reflected in demographics. That is not to say their presence would not be welcome; but surely their presence alone is not enough. Their presence must be coupled with a usefulness; the fact that they are on the force must have an effect. I do not think the comments of the member account for that.
We talked at some length in committee and in the House about compulsory training. I do not think there is any doubt that compulsory training for police officers, in our province particularly is very necessary. Speaking on my own behalf and not on behalf of my colleagues on this side, I do not believe any individual should be allowed to enforce the laws of this country without some sensible level of basic training in police procedure, human psychology and the law.
I find it unacceptable in this day and age that somewhere in this province someone with no previous training, with only an interest, however positive that may be, can be hired off the street, assigned a weapon and put in a patrol car to serve, protect and (10 whatever else is required without some minimum level of formalized training in that area.
If that is of importance, the matter of the firearm is of even greater importance. No one in this province who has any responsibility for the protection of other people should be allowed to assume that responsibility with a weapon with out some very specific basic training in its use. I am not speaking only of its mechanical use. It is no trick to become proficient at pulling the trigger, or to squeeze off a bullet from a firearm, in a very limited number of hours. That is not what we are dealing with here. The last thing we want in the 1980s and beyond is people who are competent to shoot other people.
What we must have hand in hand with that are trained people who have the judgment, the experience and the expertise to know when it is necessary and, in a much more real way, when it is not necessary to pull that trigger. There is not one member of this House who would suggest for one second that we should in any way subject our peace officers to any greater danger, to risk their lives in any greater measure than they do now, day in and day out, by a more judicious use of their firearms. But we are setting up that situation artificially if we do not require a substantial and sophisticated level of training in not only the use of those firearms as a mechanical device but also the appropriate use of them in given situations before we assign them to enforce the law's of this province and this country.
Police pursuit is another thorny issue. It is one that comes up every time there is a tragedy. It is one that is a perennial concern for many people. I-low does one stop them? Where does one draw the line? If an officer stops a car and the person decides to drive off rather than stop, at what point does the constable determine what his crime against society is or if he is only fleeing apprehension?
8:50 p.m.
The tragedies we hear about are those chases that result in injury or death to innocent bystanders or to officers or to the person who is pursued. Even more often than that we hear about cases where, upon reflection and investigation, it is discovered that there was no greater crime against society than perhaps an outstanding traffic warrant. There has been a pursuit, and there has been considerable injury, perhaps loss of life, or considerable property damage, to recover a $28 seatbelt fine.
It is easy to look at those examples and say that is not an appropriate case for a high-speed pursuit. I do not think anyone in this House would disagree with that. But where and how does the officer find that out? What if it is not a traffic matter? What if the fellow is fleeing because he is a felon, wanted in connection with a very serious crime of violence? If an officer cannot make that determination prior to initiating the pursuit, I do not know what judgement he can exercise. Is it better to let 10 speeders go free and one felon go free, than to try to use a judicious process in those situations, to use good judgement and pursue those who may be a threat to society as a whole?
One cannot do it without training. Once again, it is not a matter of learning how to drive a car. I would guess there are 500 establishments in this city alone where one can learn how to operate a motor vehicle. I would suggest further there are 25 establishments in this province where one can learn the very specific and scientific matter of driving a car under adverse conditions, can learn to drive fast with some measure of safety, can learn to drive into hazards with some measure of safety.
It may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, although I am sure it will not, that one can learn how to stop a vehicle with some measure of safety under a variety of adverse conditions. But at this time, when a person is hired from the street to be a police officer, in some parts of our province he can find himself in exactly that situation, and there is no requirement that he should have the barest rudiments of that specific training. He only needs to have a valid Ontario operator's licence. 'That is one thing the committee has addressed and it recognizes there must be further study done in that area.
No one on the committee suggested that the work of the Ontario Police Commission was not valid. I acknowledge that when we were down at headquarters during our review, the computer was unable to find the file of the member for Oshawa, and we will never know what was in his file. He seemed quite intrigued to see what might be revealed, but for whatever reason, when the keys were pushed, one Michael Breaugh of the city of Oshawa did not appear. I am sure, on reflection, it probably came as some relief to him, and it came as a relief to all of us as well.
The Deputy Speaker: Point of order?
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is nice of you to suggest to the other side of the House when someone should be incensed or when someone should, in your judgment, rise on a point of order, whatever it might be, and I am sure we would have been interested to learn what it would have been.
The third agency to be reviewed is one in which I have a particular interest: the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority. We did not have the opportunity in any large way to view the very good facilities that are provided for the maintenance, which in ultimate terms means the continued, ongoing, good operation, of the rail and the bus systems in the greater Metropolitan area.
In anticipation of having a very few, nontime-consuming remarks to make on this report tonight, yesterday I took the opportunity to tour the two major service facilities here in Metropolitan Toronto with the chairman of TATOA, Lou Parsons. If I may take a very brief amount of time, I am sure the member for Oshawa will be interested. The member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski), who has a great interest in everything that goes on in Ontario, will be even more interested to hear my very brief synopsis.
Mr. Boudria: The member for Renfrew South is not here.
Mr. Robinson: Sorry, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway); merely a hop, skip and a jump away. If he were to accuse me of being from some Scarborough riding other than my own, I know I would be tolerant of him and would understand.
Mr. Breaugh: There are simply no philosophical differences there.
Mr. Robinson: I will go back to speaking to the report so as not to arouse the member for Oshawa any further.
Mr. Breaugh: I object to that. I don't think you could possibly arouse me.
Mr. Robinson: May I say how particularly grateful I am to have that comment from the member for Oshawa, whatever it may mean.
Mr. Breaugh: I cannot explain it to you now; maybe later.
Mr. Robinson: I would be equally pleased if he did not try to explain it to me later.
Mr. Speaker, back to --
Mr. Breaugh: It seems to be a little late for you to be learning these things.
Mr. Conway: They came to scoff but they stayed to pray.
Mr. Robinson: I am trying to get back to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Boudria: Why don't you accept the fact that the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) is not coming back, so we can move on to the Ombudsman's report?
Mr. Robinson: I would have to say to the member for Prescott-Russell -- and he and I have some background of experience in matters around this House -- that frankly, I have no interest whatsoever in whether the Solicitor General attends tonight. I could well be in my riding tonight attending a very important all-candidates' meeting, a function that is being held there, but I think this report deserves the full attention of the House and I will stay here as long as it is necessary for me to complete my remarks and to hear --
Mr. Conway: I bet David Warner is at that meeting.
Mr. Robinson: No, he is not -- to hear what the members opposite may have to say.
Without further ado, I'll get back to the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority and my tour of their facilities yesterday. I went through their main bus maintenance facility on Steeprock Drive which is a considerable distance north of us on Wilson Avenue. There they service and keep rolling approximately 500 buses in their fleet. They do it with some great measure of science, enthusiasm and good facilities.
I am sure many of us with municipal backgrounds will recognize -- we have had a change at the helm, which I acknowledge, although I am sure the Speaker will be equally interested in my remarks as the Deputy Speaker had been -- that transit maintenance facilities may not have kept pace with the transit developments across the many years in Ontario. It may be that they are working on sophisticated, modern automotive equipment without the benefit of the tools or the machinery to back that up.
I am pleased to report to the House, and particularly to my former colleagues on the procedural affairs committee, that is not the case with GO Transit. They do not have an immodest facility; they have an efficient facility which is carefully broken down into a variety of functions, to take care of both the daily maintenance of the coaches as they come in, and the timed and mileage maintenance of those coaches as they go on their appointed rounds throughout the course of the day, week and month and also from a point of inventory proviso.
Because of what I would like to think, and I am sure members opposite would agree has been a matter of shrewd purchasing by GO Transit, particularly on behalf of TATOA, over the past number of years, now they are using a limited number of types of vehicles, manufacturers of vehicles -- all Canadian I might add before someone wants to know where they were made; some indeed manufactured by the Orion company in that great riding of Mississauga East. I need remind no one which member represents that riding in this House.
Mr. Breaugh: Who is that masked person? Who is it?
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I knew I should not have to tell them who the member was, that they would all in chorus and in concert come across here and tell me exactly who it was, and remind us that it was no less a person, as the member for Renfrew North would want to report to us on other occasions, than the Honourable Milton Gregory, commonly and affectionately known to all of us as Bud.
Mr. Breaugh: That's about as less a person as you can get.
Mr. Robinson: Back to the buses if I may just for a few moments.
Mr. Breaugh: The Speaker didn't even recognize him when he stood up tonight, as if the guy was a total stranger.
Mr. Robinson: As I was saying before being so interestingly interrupted, once again GO Transit, on behalf of and through TATOA, has now limited its fleet to very few -- in fact I think it is three -- manufacturers of vehicles for which of course they need not maintain so large and varied an inventory of parts and for which they have the specialized equipment and tools to service in very handy order and to restore to full service with the minimum of delay and downtime.
I would certainly recommend and commend to all members of this assembly a tour of that facility to increase their knowledge of bus service and, more particularly, bus maintenance. As well, in touring that facility yesterday, it was my pleasure to learn that many major commuter bus operators across North America have taken the time to tour that facility -- it is not a lengthy tour, but it is a good tour -- and have all left suitably impressed.
Mr. Breaugh: That tells you something about your life. A tour of the bus station is a highlight.
9 p.m.
Mr. Robinson: Moving on to the rail facility, which may be of greater interest to the member for Oshawa. I know his propensity and desire for full, heavy-rail service in his community which is somewhat east of mine in that great lakeshore corridor. He has a modest disdain for the bus commuter service that is available now as it has been for a number of years. I share his enthusiasm for that great, immediate capacity rail system soon to come to his area under the auspices of the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority and GO Transit.
I refer to the great joint project announced recently by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) on behalf of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. which will supply the only suitable vehicles for that particular corridor. I know the member looks forward with enthusiasm to being in the cab of that first vehicle to depart or arrive in the great municipality of Oshawa, if only we are able to build it during his term of office so he may be the incumbent to enjoy it.
Dealing now, if I may, in a more specific way as this relates to the great city of Oshawa, it is unfortunate my friend the member for Oshawa spoke before I did. I am sure he would want equal time to counter many of the points I am making tonight. If he does not counter them tonight, no doubt he will find an opportunity on some other occasion to draw to my attention some of the anomalies and inconsistencies related to his position that I have advanced tonight.
Mr. Conway: I want to hear Runciman.
Mr. Breaugh: I want to hear anybody else.
Mr. Robinson: I appreciate with sincerity the vote of confidence from the members opposite for my modest and humble remarks tonight. With their kind permission, I will continue.
I had occasion to tour the Willowbrook rail maintenance facility. Impressive as the bus facility was, I have to report on behalf of TATOA that their rail maintenance facility is the envy of North America.
Mr. Piché: He still has not mentioned LRC service to northern Ontario.
Mr. Robinson: I will try to describe in very inadequate words the multilevel service facility designed in such a way that a train in consist, which is a railway term for maintaining the integrity of a whole train by not having to take it apart and put it back together again before and after servicing, they service the whole train as one unit. In the GO Transit fleet, we in this House know how important it is not to delay the worthy endeavours and efforts of those trains.
They have been able to devise a facility and design and construct it in such a way that the entire train can be serviced at one time, with a variety of bays and facilities to accommodate the tractor power and locomotive power, with ancillary functions available to service the coaches themselves, in one unit and at one time. It is truly the most remarkable and innovative facility in North America.
For those of us who have a modest knowledge of what rail transportation and maintenance may have been in the past, it makes a great change from a lone trainman lying in the snow on some oil-encrusted gravel beside a siding track, trying to service a coach that is still in service or one that has been taken out of service. If the members of this House have an opportunity to see that facility, I commend it to them as being very worthy.
Dealing specifically with the recommendations of the report itself and turning briefly to page 20, it is interesting to note the committee heard tales of woe, almost of usury at the hands of Canadian National -- that great federal crown corporation, the national railway of this country -- in those tales on behalf of Go Transit about the amount that is being charged to us, another crown body, from the interchange of funds from one to the other.
The most flagrant point of all is not that we mind paying the lease price for the trackage, for the crews that operate GO Transit equipment, for the maintenance facilities and personnel who maintain that equipment, but I think there is not one member of this House who would not be incensed to recognize that, of all the money we are paying, there is a certain percentage laid down by that federal crown corporation that is for pure profit.
We are doing nothing more than taking from the taxpayers of Ontario and somehow giving away to the taxpayers of Canada as a whole a percentage for nothing at all in return: for no service, for no facility, for no equipment. We are simply paying a flat fee, a flat management fee and a flat profit fee to that great corporation, the president and principals of which have been appointed by the Liberal government in Ottawa.
So when they make their annual report back to the House of Commons, they can with some glee point to the bottom line and say, "Look what we took from the taxpayers of Ontario in pure profit and nothing else." I think if anything incensed the procedural affairs committee in its review of those agencies, it was looking at that bottom line and realizing how we were padding that federal pocket with no value to the citizens of Ontario.
That does not come easily and that does not sit well with any of us in this House. In fact, it was the recommendation of our committee, and a very strong recommendation indeed, that the Minister of Transportation and Communications, supported by the full authority of the cabinet, no less a body than the executive council of Ontario, enter into negotiations with the Canadian National Railways with a view to establishing a more equitable contract between the national railway and TATOA. If we accomplish nothing more with this report, this, in real dollars, in saving money for the people of this province, should be the vanguard and our watchword.
It is interesting to note only as a sideline that a subsidiary of Canadian National, a spinoff, if you will, being now the national passenger transportation carrier in this province and the equivalent of Amtrak in the United States, Via Rail, could not manage to get its new train from Union Station to the western extremity of the yards in the cit of Toronto on its inaugural run to Detroit. They called it the International, but it could not even make it out of the inner city before it broke down; it could not continue. They did manage to get it going, and I think after some modest delay they were, in fact, successful in arriving in that great city in the state of Michigan.
However, that selfsame body, Via Rail, now wants us to take over more of their unprofitable commuter rail lines. They abandoned them: "We are not making money on them. We do not have anybody to whom we can charge profit. We do not have another crown corporation or agency such as the province of Ontario, the right of Her Majesty in the province of Ontario, to whom we can sit down and dole out the formula."
Here is what the formula says: it is so much per mile, so much per curve, so much for maintenance, so much for renovation, so much for capital expenditure and so much for profit. But they could find no one to do that, no one who would gleefully and willingly with a gun to his head make the commitment on behalf of Ontario to sustain those lines -- not the poor commuters who ride those lines every day -- so no less a person than the Honourable Jean-Luc Pépin said: "Then we will abandon them. We will simply give them up." Not just the ones here in Ontario; indeed, many of those across this great country fell into that same category.
What are we left with today?
Mr. Conway: What did you have for dinner?
Mr. Robinson: I should say to the member for Renfrew North that I was at dinner this evening with some of the most august members of this assembly, and I think it is only fair to note that, unfortunately, the member for Renfrew North was not one of them. However, I am sure he had greater affairs of state or, if not affairs of state, then affairs of his party, to attend to --
Mr. Shymko: And he enjoyed good Ontario wine, I must say.
Mr. Robinson: -- during that particular adjournment. I do not think I enjoyed it quite as much as some others may have done.
It is interesting, though, that now they have abandoned those two rail lines, both of which go through my riding, GO Transit has through this government been able to take over one of those lines, the line through Stouffville to Toronto, to pick up that commuter service. It was my pleasure to participate in the inaugural run of that service some weeks ago, immediately after Labour Day this year. I think those people are well served and, from the standpoint of speed and comfort, better served than they have ever been.
All members of this House will find it truly inconsistent that we as a provincial government should simply have to take over those lines to fulfil a commitment that the federal government no longer wished to address.
9:10 p.m.
Interjection.
Mr. Robinson: Finally, it is worthy of comment -- to whoever that sound may have come from; probably my friend the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) because I was going to mention what is happening out his way right now.
The member for Oshawa is now somewhat mobile, likely in an attempt to stimulate his red corpuscles in heated debate with the Sergeant at Arms and other House attendants over whether I can somehow be removed violently from the chamber before I conclude these modest remarks. I am sure that is not what he is saying.
It is a substantial feather in the cap of this government that within a matter of weeks of the completion of this report, there was a major announcement from the Minister of Transportation and Communications that GO service had been extended in a substantial, growth-oriented and ongoing way to the great community west of this fine metropolis, Hamilton and Stoney Creek, and through to the great city of Oshawa on the east.
Of the agencies we reviewed for the report before the House tonight, the comments on the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority are to be particularly taken to heart by all members of the assembly.
I will deal only briefly, and I know the members across will be pleased at that, with the Ontario Energy Board. That is something other members may have had greater interest in and have spoken more eloquently on than I can, and I do not deny that for a second. It is fair to say --
Interjection.
Mr. Robinson: I knew I would elicit some comment by saying that which is exactly the reason I said it. However, I would also say, and I think it goes without contradiction, that we as a committee were concerned about the ongoing matter of energy and energy pricing in Ontario.
One thing that came through loud and clear to us during that review was the issue of the monopoly position held by the vendors of natural gas here in our province and reflected across the country. It is with no small measure of concern that hearings were held in the month of August this year to look at some of those pass-through prices on behalf of natural gas vendors. The Ontario Energy Board came to some conclusion on that.
As the future unfolds, we look to an even stronger role for the Ontario Energy Board within the fabric of legislation and government in Ontario. That is welcomed by all of our constituents regardless of what part of the great province they may live in at this time.
If I may say with the indulgence of the House, particularly to my friend the member for Oshawa, the member for Renfrew North and my colleagues on my own side, those conclude my very modest, although I hope considered remarks on the report.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if this was a --
Mr. Conway: Speeches like that used to give your predecessor the title of windbag Warner.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I was just saying in a much less eloquent way than the member for Renfrew North that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has spoken at length, to say the least, on this topic. I cannot help but wonder if the discussion was simply to consume a certain amount of time in the hope that the Solicitor General would finally get here to make some concluding remarks which he had not had the time to make previously.
While all of these repetitious speeches have been going on, the ninth report of the select committee on the Ombudsman has not been dealt with. I find that unfortunate because I believe there are very serious matters to be dealt with in the Ombudsman's report. I am sure our very distinguished chairman, the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), would agree with me that discussion of the Ombudsman's report would be far more useful at this time than anything else we could do.
I am not saying the recommendations of the standing committee on procedural affairs are unimportant. I am only saying that some of them have been expressed at length already.
I would like to make only a few remarks on the summary of recommendations in the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs. I would like to comment first on the recommendation which says, "The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations ensure that those individuals appointed to the board come from a cross-section of the Ontario community."
I recognize that in the past there has been this great dilemma with the Ontario Board of Censors. On the one hand, we do not want to expose the population of Ontario to violence and to very explicit sexual scenes and so on in films and even on television. We do not want to appear to encourage a climate where some people in this province are exploited by others. We all share that concern.
On the other hand, there is the other concern which says any kind of censorship is an infringement on individual rights. It is difficult to rationalize those two points of view. I can appreciate that and I have often thought seriously as to which side of the issue should be taken by each and every one of us.
The point in that recommendation that strikes me is the expression "cross-section of the Ontario community," because it is quite evident to me that the prevailing values of people living in one part of this province may be somewhat different from those of others living in another part of the province. The same applies throughout our whole country.
I do not think I need remind anyone here that the censorship laws in Quebec are certainly not as strict as they are in this province. A number of years ago, there was a television station in Hull, Quebec, which is right across the river from the great city of Ottawa and near my constituency. There was a channel in Hull, channel 30, that showed on Friday nights what we would call blue movies, perhaps better known as soft-core porn movies, or something of that nature. Needless to say, the movies had a very large audience. The movies were in the French language but I suspect some people who watched them may not have understood every single word that was said. I am sure they captured vividly the intent of what was in front of them on the television set.
At one point, a very unusual thing happened to that television station. The city of Ottawa police crossed the river into Quebec and charged the television station in Hull for broadcasting an obscene movie in Ottawa, across the river, by means of a television signal. That describes the situation one has sometimes with different sets of values in different parts of our country. Depending on one's ethnic origin, language, religion and so on, the belief as to what should be censored or what should not be seen may not be the same in each part of Ontario.
In his appointments to the board of censors, I hope the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will take that into account and perhaps place on the board members from various areas of the province so they can be in a position to assess the fact that not all Ontarians are alike, and that what may be constituted in one part of our province as being something which should not be televised or should not be in a film, in another part of the province may be somewhat more acceptable.
There are those two views to be reconciled. Possibly by having a greater cross-section of Ontario, we will be able to arrive at judgements which are fairer to the population of our province.
9:20 p.m.
I read with great interest the recommendation with regard to the Ontario Police Commission and the training of police officers generally. I would like the members to take note of the following recommendation. "A system of training of all police officers be made compulsory prior to their being hired by the local force."
I need not remind members of this Legislature that recently the standing committee on social development had extensive hearings on the issue of wife battering. When we had those hearings, it became apparent to all of us that police were not nearly as well trained in the area of crisis intervention as they should be.
Not only should all police officers receive more formal training, because as we know some of them receive little, but even those who go through the full Ontario Police College training program are ill-equipped in the area of crisis intervention. I believe that should be underlined at this time.
When we are discussing the training of police officers, I also think we should take into account local needs, needs which are perhaps not as well fulfilled in certain parts of our province as in others. I can only give some examples of the hearings of our committee which identified that one of the great unfulfilled needs of certain people in this province was linguistic.
The native people often have police officers attending to their needs who cannot speak their language. The most striking example, certainly to me, is the lack of Ontario Provincial Police officers and police officers in general who are able to do crisis intervention in the French language. That is of particular concern to the people of my constituency, with the high ratio of unilingual francophones living in my area.
The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) was here a few moments ago. Perhaps he has stepped out momentarily. I am sure that would be of equal concern to him in his area because, as we all know, he also has a high percentage of francophones in his riding. I believe it is of the order of 70 per cent.
Those are two areas which I believe are of particular interest to the people of this province and more specifically to the people of the riding of Prescott-Russell.
Mr. Speaker: The motion before the House is for adoption of the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs on agencies, boards and commissions. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
Motion agreed to.
REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the ninth report of the select committee on the Ombudsman, 1981.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Leeds.
Mr. Conway: The only independent spirit over there.
Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the member for Renfrew North here. He never misses one of my speeches. It really makes me feel good.
Mr. Conway: There are few things I enjoy more thoroughly.
Mr. Runciman: As chairman of the select committee on the Ombudsman, I am pleased to lead off tonight in the debate on the committee's ninth report.
Before getting into the substance of my remarks, let me say that although the committee is happy the report is to be debated, the members join with me in hoping we will not always have to wait 10 months between the tabling and debating of future committee reports.
We all recognize the demands on House time are endless and that the House has many important matters to deal with. By the same token, though, the House has delegated to us the important task of reviewing the work of the Ombudsman who is, after all, a servant of the House.
As I will explain later, it is particularly important that the assembly be given an opportunity to pass judgement on the committee's recommendations in order that what we call in the report "the Ombudsman process" be completed. Certainly the Ombudsman and his staff, as well as the government agencies affected by the recommendations, are most anxious that the House offer its opinion on them and either adopt or reject them.
Many members of the House, particularly but not exclusively those first elected last year, have had little exposure to the committee and it is quite understandable if they probably have only a vague idea of what the committee does. For this reason, the principal thrust of my comments this evening will be on the nature of the committee and its work. At the outset, I wish to emphasize that not only is the work of the committee unique but so is its approach to its work.
When I was first appointed chairman and began to read up on it, I was struck by the reputation it had developed over the years for being nonpartisan and for being fair and evenhanded. I have tried hard to maintain those admirable traditions and with the co-operation of the members, who prize the committee's nonpartisan approach as highly as I do, they have with one or to minor exceptions been maintained.
To backtrack a bit, the members should recognize that although we tend to think of a select committee as being temporary, the select committee on the Ombudsman actually originated in the summer of 1976. Members may also be interested to know that although many jurisdictions in the Commonwealth, including nine of the 10 Canadian provinces, have Ombudsmen, very few have anything like a select committee. There is a similar committee at Westminster, and Alberta has a committee which deals in part with its Ombudsman, but I am told it is not in anything like the way our committee does.
Although our committee occasionally makes headlines, for the most part the press find our proceedings unworthy of attention. I do not say this by way of appeal to the media to pay closer attention to the committee, for I am a realist in those matters and recognize that our work is important but not too exciting. Rather my point is to pay tribute to the members of the committee who put in long hours and deal with highly detailed and sometimes confusing problems with precious little expectation of any sort of political payoff.
It is to be hoped they do the work, which can frequently be quite tedious and time-consuming, because they believe in the importance of the Ombudsman process in Ontario. By and large, the work is its own reward and I feel the committee members should be commended for the dedication they bring to it.
The report we are debating contains eight substantive recommendations on which the House will be asked to pass judgement at the end of the evening or perhaps next week. I do not feel it is my role to argue the pros and cons of those recommendations. The report itself indicates the committee's thinking leading up to the recommendations. Also, I am sure others speaking after me can present the arguments quite ably. I would, however, make two general points.
First, although there was disagreement within the committee on specific recommendations, the report contains no dissenting opinions. For me this is very much a measure of the committee's nonpartisan nature. Second, if I refrain from arguing in favour of the recommendations I have no hesitation in urging members to consider the recommendations very carefully. In this regard, let me quote from pages 2 and 3 of the report:
"As a matter of general principle, the committee does not consider that a single decision of the Legislative Assembly to reject the recommendation of this committee will undermine the Ombudsman's authority and effectiveness. However, the committee believes that such a decision by the assembly should only be taken in exceptional circumstances and only when, after a full debate has occurred, the Legislature is able to conclude that the implementation of the committee's recommendation would, in the circumstances, be contrary to the public interest or be contrary to some generally recognized principle of law.
"The process that has developed between this committee and the Legislative Assembly respecting Ombudsman recommendations requires that all relevant committee recommendations be adopted by the Legislature unless some substantive reason to the contrary can be shown. It is absolutely vital to the continuing viability and effectiveness of the Ombudsman process that this be so. If a situation were permitted to develop whereby rejection of such committee recommendations were the norm, or were made for some capricious reason, the Ombudsman's effectiveness in the eyes of the governmental organizations and the people of the province of Ontario would be irreparably harmed."
9:30 p.m.
I should draw the members' attention to the implications of recommendation 7, which states, in essence, that the select committee on the Ombudsman, rather than some other committee, usually the standing committee on general government, be authorized by the House to consider the estimates of the Office of the Ombudsman. This would, of course, be only after the Board of Internal Economy reviewed the estimates.
It was noted in our report as long ago as 1978 that the Board of Internal Economy recommended that the select committee be the committee to examine the Ombudsman's estimates. As the House is aware, the committee has recently been refused access to certain budgetary documents by the Ombudsman. The committee intends to deal with the important issues raised in this matter in its next report and, therefore, I will not go into the merits of the committee's request and the Ombudsman's refusal. However, it is my understanding that if the House agrees to recommendation 7, the Ombudsman will provide the information to the committee.
Without, as I say, going into the merits of the case, let me correct one widely held misapprehension about this matter. It has been repeated in the press that the committee wanted information on the salaries of the Ombudsman's staff. Aside from the fact that all senior staff salaries are a matter of public record and may be found in the public accounts, we specifically excluded individual salaries from the information we requested. I want to get that on the record.
In part because the disagreement between the Ombudsman and the committee received such notoriety, I wish to put on the record some comments about the Ombudsman and his office. While there have been and doubtless will always be disagreements of this nature, I have no hesitation in saying that for my part I have the greatest respect for the integrity and dedication of our present Ombudsman, the Honourable Donald Morand, and for the calibre of his staff.
To paraphrase the comments on page 8 of the report, while the committee will continue to comment critically on the Ombudsman's procedures and approaches, particularly those relating to the length of time taken by the Ombudsman to deal with complaints, it will do so in the recognition that the operation is already first-class and in the belief that the Ontario Ombudsman's office can and should be the best anywhere.
From a similar viewpoint, let me recognize the Ombudsman's very welcome decision to be present for more of the committee's latest hearings than he had been accustomed to attending, as we requested in our ninth report.
I would like to turn briefly to the process of the committee in dealing with the detailed review of specific cases mentioned in the Ombudsman's annual report. This is a phase of our work that receives the least attention but is the most time-consuming and, some would say, the most important. Every year the Ombudsman's report contains a number of case summaries that set out, without using anyone's name, the complaint, the actions of the Ombudsman's office, the Ombudsman's conclusions and the response of the government organization against which the complaint was made. Most of these case summaries are illustrative only, that is, they show the type of work done by the Ombudsman.
These are cases in which either the Ombudsman did not support the complaint or, if he did support the complaint, the government accepted his conclusions and implemented his recommendations. A small number of case summaries are significantly different. These are the so-called "recommendation denied" cases in which the Ombudsman agreed with the complainant but the governmental organization refused to implement the Ombudsman's recommendations.
In the most recent report of the Ombudsman, 1981-82, of the several hundred cases in which the Ombudsman supported the complainant, in only eight instances did the organization refuse to comply with his recommendation. In the previous year there were only two. But, if there are few such cases, they are extremely important since they raise the question of what happens when the government refuses the Ombudsman's recommendation.
The Ombudsman has no power to enforce his recommendations. This is where the committee comes in. The committee has made it a practice to review every recommendation-denied case. This involves the Ombudsman making available to the committee documentation on the cases. For the most part, this includes correspondence between the complainant and the Ombudsman and between the Ombudsman and the governmental organization, setting out the facts of the case, points of agreement and disagreement and differences of interpretation and conclusions.
This material is provided to the committee with all names and identifying references removed, so that the anonymity of the complainant is preserved. Neither the members of the committee nor the committee staff know the identity of the person whose case is being reviewed.
With this documentation before it, the committee calls in representatives of the Office of the Ombudsman and of the ministry or agency concerned. The facts are brought out, the steps of the Ombudsman's investigation detailed and the basis for all conclusions and interpretations of facts are set out by questioning of both sides, if I can use that term.
When everyone has had his say, the committee attempts to decide between the case made by the Ombudsman and the case made by the government. Occasionally some sort of compromise is proposed. In this process the committee attempts to be thorough and fair, but it is not exactly neutral. I could quote from the report, but I do not think I will this evening, that we are slightly weighted in favour of the Ombudsman. There is no question about that.
Once the committee has reached a conclusion on a particular case, it makes the appropriate recommendation in its report to the House and asks the House to pass final judgement, as is being done here tonight.
It is in this sense that former Ombudsman Arthur Maloney spoke of the committee as an important arrow in his quiver, for the Ombudsman has no formal powers to enforce his decisions. This process means that the administrators who refuse to comply with his recommendations must justify their refusal before a committee of elected members, and ultimately before this House itself.
To quote again from an earlier committee report, "By this process, the Legislature has now demonstrated to the Ombudsman, the governmental organizations under his jurisdiction and to the people of the province of Ontario that in the appropriate circumstances the Legislative Assembly of the province will do everything within its competence to see that the Ombudsman's recommendations are implemented."
I want to touch briefly on one other area of committee activity before concluding and that is what the committee calls "communications from the public." Every year the committee receives a number of complaints about the Ombudsman and his staff. For the most part, these are from people who disagree with the Ombudsman's conclusions or who find fault with the method of operation of his office.
All such communications are reviewed on their merits by the committee. The Ombudsman has been most co-operative in providing information and documents to the committee. In very few instances has the committee concluded that it should pursue the matters raised by the individuals who contact it because, in the final analysis, most of these are essentially disagreements with the Ombudsman's conclusions.
The committee has consistently refused to act as a court of appeal on the Ombudsman's decisions or as an ombudsman on the Ombudsman. We simply do not see this as the function the Legislature intended for the committee. It is stated in our report that the committee will continue to receive and consider these communications from the public, but will take action on them or invite the communicants to appear before the committee only if it believes the matters raised are relevant to the committee's terms of reference.
In case members are wondering about the committee's work in the field of international human rights stemming from the order of the House of October 13, 1981, I wish to state that the committee has a draft report and hopes to finalize its report and have it before the House within a few weeks.
I would also like to mention that the early recall of the House forced the committee to postpone a trip to northern Ontario during which we planned to visit the Ombudsman's regional offices in North Bay and Thunder Bay, several Indian reserves, as well as correctional and psychiatric facilities. All members were looking forward to this trip and I want to emphasize that we have postponed it, not cancelled it.
In conclusion, let me state again that this committee does good work, important work and I am honoured to be its chairman.
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, before I present my remarks I wonder if I missed something at the beginning of the comments of the member for Leeds. Did the member move the adoption of the report and the recommendations contained therein?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, he did.
Mr. Van Horne: Thank you. I would like to preface my remarks with a compliment to the member for Leeds for his excellent job as chairman of the select committee. He was forthright, candid, a good manager of time and director of the people and thought traffic that flowed through that committee the various times we met in this past year.
9:40 p.m.
I do not want to spend too much time going back over ground he has already covered -- the recommendations, denied cases and the importance of the role of the committee. I think he has adequately covered the content of the report and the role of the committee. However, it is rather difficult for me in a very few words to express the depth of feeling I and, I am sure, other members of this chamber have on the whole theme of the Ombudsman as it has unfolded in recent days, weeks and months.
I have always believed the average citizen -- the little man, whatever that person is called -- who is periodically beaten down by bureaucracy should have some court of final appeal that is not going to cost him a lot for legal advice etc. I believe that feeling is somewhat the same as what members of our caucus had back in the mid-1970s when the office of the Ombudsman was being discussed in principle in this chamber. Then members, such as the late member for Sarnia, Mr. Bullbrook, felt very strongly, as I do, that there should be some court of final appeal for the man who has been the recipient of the whip end of bureaucracy. In fact, I do not think there is any question, from the time of the inception of the Ombudsman as a legitimate office, that all members have felt they have been ombudspersons of sorts.
It is difficult for me to suggest that the office of Ombudsman has never been totally equal for the individual members acting in that capacity. There is always that extra little impact that a member of the government party has over an opposition member. It is a fact of life. They have better contacts and a little more influence within the government ministries and those corridors of power that have been alluded to by former cabinet ministers from time to time. Even though I think we have all agreed with the concepts that individual members are ombudspersons, there has been a different level of effectiveness for the government side versus the opposition.
When the Ombudsman office came into being in 1975, I think government members were a bit relieved. It would take away that negative aspect, from their view, of having just a bit extra over the opposition members. This office then would be a sort of neutral ground to which any person in the province might go. Of course, members of the opposition were delighted, because that person within their community who in the past may not have had quite an equal chance in dealing with bureaucracy may have been put in a better position because of the neutrality of the office.
However, it is a matter of great concern to me that the way the Ombudsman has treated the select committee in recent days detracts from that neutrality in a sense and puts the whole Ombudsman theme in a shadow I find very difficult to contend with.
What I am trying to say in a rather awkward way is that when the Ombudsman determines that he or his office will not provide members of the select committee with certain information it requires or desires, when he determines that it is none of our business, he puts all of us in a very difficult position and removes himself from the authority of this chamber. He is setting himself aside as an authority above and beyond the chamber, and I am not sure that was the intent of this Legislature when the office was brought into being.
Simply put, the function of the Ombudsman is to investigate any decision or recommendation made or any act done by or omitted in the course of the administration of a government organization and affecting any person or body of persons in his or her personal capacity. That is his authority.
Further to that, subsection 16(1) of the Ombudsman Act points out that the assembly may make general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his functions under the act. Without going into a lot of detail, I think there is very clear evidence there that the authority of the select committee, as an extension of this chamber, can be found in that section of the act.
I have already made reference to the fact that every member of this chamber is an ombudsperson of sorts. We are the real ombudspersons. The Ombudsman, on the other hand, in the office created by this chamber, is the appointed person.
Given the way he has approached the office, I am sure many people are wondering whether this is just another level of cover for a government that has been in power for many years. It has been pointed out to me by some sceptics in the communities I visit from time to time, including the community in which I live, that the Ombudsman is just another buffer to cover the government.
The government can say: "We try to be evenhanded, honest and forthright with the citizens of this great province. Sure, from time to time a civil servant makes a mistake or the law knocks the little guy a bit, but look what we have done. Not only are we fair in setting up constituency offices for members of the Legislature, but we have also established the office of the Ombudsman, the court of last resort for the little guy or the little lady to which he or she can go and be treated fairly."
The sceptics can say, "The Ombudsman's office is just a creature of the government to give the government the appearance of being honest."
9:50 p.m.
I am going to read the select committee's terms of reference into the record. The terms of reference are that: "A select committee on the Ombudsman be appointed to review and consider from time to time the reports of the Ombudsman as they become available and as the committee deems necessary pursuant to subsection 16(1) and to formulate from time to time general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his functions under the Ombudsman Act and to report thereon to the Legislature and to make such recommendations as the committee deems appropriate."
When we see that as our order of reference, and the authority that is there for the committee, and then realize that the reports of this committee which are tabled regularly in this chamber are often left for periods of eight to 12 months before they are even considered in the House, the chairman of this committee, again the member for Leeds, has been very patient with his colleagues in dealing with the particular report we have in front of us tonight.
I do not think anyone more than he would have liked to have had this dealt with much earlier than we are dealing with it now because this report, essentially, is one year old. What the committee has been doing is carrying on, in the course of this past year, with another report dealing with a situation that is very awkward in terms of the issues. There has been animosity to a degree -- "animosity" may be too strong a word, but I think it is fair to say that there has been friction between the Ombudsman and some members of the committee in terms of who has the authority to do what.
The sceptics can ask: how important is that committee as the link between the office of the Ombudsman and the chamber, if that link is being allowed to rust, and its reports are sitting there for a year before they are even dealt with in the House? How important is it? It is really just a charade. The office of the Ombudsman and the select committee are charades.
That is a growing concept which bothers me, because in the beginning I believed in the office of the Ombudsman. I believe in the role of the members as ombudspersons in a sense, but the broader court of appeal that is the office officially set up by this Legislature is being put in a considerable shadow by the way it has been dealt with in this chamber. I think we all have to take cognizance of that.
The recent events -- the Ombudsman and the judgement of the person in that office -- I think, detract from the office. I am referring specifically to the problem that we, as a committee, had in obtaining information from him as to the details of the salary paid to his staff which was requested by my colleague the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).
There was some concern from members of the third party, particularly the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), about details of the trip the Ombudsman and some of his staff took to the Pacific region, including Fiji, Hawaii, etc.
The final item of concern that came out of the fencing that went on as we were trying to get this information was the revelation that some of the relatives of the Ombudsman had been hired within his office.
The ultimate criticism that comes out of this is a question of the judgement of the Ombudsman and the people who are his senior advisers. I have to submit that has put the whole office in considerable shadow. It is for that reason that I have presented a resolution to this chamber asking that the Provincial Auditor be required to perform a comprehensive audit, including a program of evaluation of the functions and administration of the Ombudsman's office.
If we do not get to the point in this chamber of having the recommendations of our report adopted by the House -- and they have been ignored; they have been presented to the House, but they have been ignored over the years -- if they are going to continue to be ignored, then only such a resolution as the one I have presented is going to bring the focus on to the problem that we have.
I think we all realize that the resolution may not of itself do the job, but certainly it will see the issue raised through a committee, such as the standing committee on public accounts, or perhaps by a cabinet minister who might feel so inclined; and, as I understand it, the auditor will act on direction from a cabinet minister or from that committee.
Only a resolution passed and debated at some later date in this House, if necessary -- if we do not adopt the recommendations in this report -- will bring some focus on to the issue. We simply cannot carry on, and it would be a farce for this committee to carry on with the situation as it now exists with none of the recommendations really being acted on.
The larger question is the credibility of the office. It bothers me to have to say that, but it is where we are. We have argued over whether the Ombudsman should present the information we requested to the committee. There have been long arguments within committee about where we get our authority etc. I have tried to indicate very briefly that we can see in subsection 16(1) that there is authority there.
I want to refer briefly to some of the notes that we as a committee considered, which were presented through our staff and through people who worked along with our committee to give us some background. The essence of the argument seemed to many people to be how broad was the order of reference of the select committee on the Ombudsman.
On the one hand, the order of reference cannot mean, in effect, all matters relating to the Ombudsman or else it would have said so, rather than being couched in specific terms, terms such as "reports of the Ombudsman" or "formulate general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in exercise of his functions under the Ombudsman Act."
On the other hand, it is the experience here in Ontario that Ontario legislative committees have with little or no objection given quite broad interpretation to their orders of reference. Inquiries conducted as a consequence of references under standing order 33(b) are important parallels to the matter at issue. Under this procedure, an annual report of a ministry or agency is referred to a committee for examination and an inquiry conducted, which might well be considered in a narrow interpretation far beyond the scope permissible in the examination of the report.
A concrete example was given to us in the standing committee on social development's consideration of the annual report of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which is taking the form of a wide-ranging investigation of family violence. Many similar instances could be provided.
Accordingly, the argument could be made that since the Ombudsman's annual report makes reference to staff levels and attendance at various conferences and meetings, it follows that more detailed information may be requested by the committee on these matters; and this is what happened. This is what the members of the committee were requesting. The member for Prescott-Russell and the member for Etobicoke requested that.
10 p.m.
Further, since reports of both the committee and the Ombudsman have long been concerned with questions of backlog of cases and length of time for resolution of complaints, it could be concluded that the deployment of the Ombudsman's resources in response to these concerns is a matter for the committee and that the deployment of financial resources is not so much different from the deployment of human resources on which the Ombudsman has provided the committee with information.
The issue, in part, is the possible significance and implications of the reference in subsection 16(1), the rule-making provision in the Ombudsman Act as to his functions, and its relation to subsection 15(1) of the act, which sets out the singular function of the Ombudsman.
We get hung up on legalities in committee, in fencing back and forth as the committee tries to do this job and get information. One of the things that has been presented to us, and the chairman made reference to it, was the trip the committee was supposed to have made to northern Ontario this fall, to take a look at the regional offices of the Ombudsman in North Bay and Thunder Bay, to see how they work, how effective they are and the role they play in the overall role of the Ombudsman's office.
These two regional offices could well develop into four offices. Funds are required for those. Someone has to give the approval for the expenditure of those funds. Surely, in the job the select committee is trying to do, consideration of the efficiency of the office would give the members of the committee, as members of that committee, or members of another committee which has to do with the estimates and the moneys spent, some determination as to whether that money would be well spent.
For whatever reasons, the Ombudsman has determined that he would like to take us on a trip but that we cannot find out the dollar details. Nor can we find out the dollar details about other things going on in his office, such as the visits to Hawaii and Fiji.
The issue, I think, has come to a head. I do not think we can carry on effectively unless we have the recommendations that are presented in this report adopted and unless the Ombudsman reviews the situation and determines, as he well should, that he is a servant of this Legislature. That is not to suggest for a minute that in the role of what he does in investigating cases brought to him, he should not be independent in looking into those complaints.
Let us go to the recommendations, particularly recommendation 7, on page 48 of the report; it recommended that the committee's "order of reference be amended to provide that it receive and consider all estimates and supplementary estimates of the Ombudsman and to report thereon to the Legislature with whatever recommendations are considered appropriate."
If that is not accepted, as opposed to being presented and simply tabled, then we have to move to my resolution. If that resolution is not accepted, I think there is only one alternative, which is to disband the select committee on the Ombudsman and to give serious consideration to the Ombudsman's office itself. If it is not able to stand up to scrutiny from within this chamber, it too must disappear.
I feel very strongly about that. We simply cannot have that office being the authoritarian office it is, setting itself up to be so separate from this chamber. The chamber does not and never has intended to interfere with its investigative role. But he is spending public dollars and he had better be answerable for that expenditure.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this report with somewhat mixed emotions, in the sense that I am pleased with some of the excellent work that has been done by this committee, which has worked in as nonpartisan a way as I have ever seen any committee of this House work.
I feel pleased about this work. It has sometimes been said that we, as opposition members, can afford to be nonpartisan because practically any work any committee does is bound to show up the government in some way. In a certain sense I suppose that is true. Yet, if we look at the way the Conservative members worked on that committee, it was as a very integral part of the team. They worked as people who were deeply concerned about the way in which the committee should fulfil its functions. To the credit of the Conservative members, as well as to all the members, I think they served the public well.
As has already been said, our chairman did an excellent job. He held the respect of all members regardless of party. I am sure that as he presents a consensus report tonight, he feels a good part of that was due to his efforts as well as to those of all members on the committee. Even when we disagreed on the committee, we were able to reach a consensus by working out some of our disagreements and by giving and taking.
I am also pleased about the excellent and untiring work of our clerk who was always available to committee members, who was constantly on top of things and who did an excellent job.
When I look at the work of the committee, I cannot help but think that without the efforts of our counsel, John Bell, we would never have got through the tremendous and heavy case work our committee had to deal with. Mr. Bell was not only organized but I think he was, at least at most times, fairly equal and balanced in the counsel he gave us.
It was on May 14, 1981, that the eighth report of our committee was debated. In our report, we decided to support the Ombudsman in his recommendation that the Workmen's Compensation Board alter its interpretation and application of subsection 41(2) which is now 41(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Minister of Labour disagreed with our position and the Legislature supported the minister.
The chairman talked about this earlier. To his credit, he faced this problem head on in his remarks this evening. Our report this time deals with some of the soul searching and problems our committee was faced with having had the Legislature, in a sense, overrule us.
If our committee is to operate in a nonpartisan way, I must caution the House, as did our chairman, that we all have to look very seriously at what happened that night.
The minister advised the Legislature with regret that the legal opinions of his ministry disagreed with those of the Ombudsman as well as with that of the select committee. Our committee believes such a decision by the assembly should only be taken in exceptional circumstances and only after, as our chairman mentioned earlier, there has been considerable debate and considerable understanding by all members of the House as to what is being done and why the committee is being overruled.
10:10 p.m.
To do otherwise is to take away from the nonpartisan nature of the Ombudsman committee. Why should I spend a lot of time trying to convince the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) of the merits of some argument that I am trying to make to him, if I know that even if I convince him or even if we reach a compromise of some kind, the member for High Park-Swansea and I will be overruled by the House? The government can use its majority, or more particularly the cabinet can use its power to defeat whatever we agree to. For it to do so hurts the member for High Park-Swansea because he feels that his opinions, which he shared in a nonpartisan way, will not have any effect and in fact he may he embarrassed by his own government in the House. More particularly, it also makes the opposition feel, as the previous speaker for the Liberal Party, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), has pointed out, as though the whole exercise is futile.
I mention this only in the context of this report today. Other members of our committee are united in the position that we have taken in our next report. Our next report may not find favour with all members of the House as does the present one. Indeed, it may not find favour with the cabinet or with certain members of the cabinet, but I warn those members and other members that a defeat of the next report will create more than the momentary peril and upset that happened with our last report. It will be, as the member for London North has pointed out, to ask some members of the committee whether or not it is worthwhile going through the exercise.
The Ombudsman is of the opinion that his office ranks as the best in the world. The committee's opinion is that this may well be the case, but it still remains the case that many people in the public have sought assistance and do not feel well served in terms of the time that it takes to get service. The only way that our committee can make constructive suggestions on the way in which that Ombudsman's office delivers the service is to have some knowledge of the expenditure of moneys on various activities and to be able to offer constructive criticism as has been done in the past.
I would like to deal with that in some detail in a couple of minutes, but I can say that what is needed by the Ombudsman's committee is access to the information. This is not because we want to say to the Ombudsman, "No, you are not going to get X number of dollars." We recognize that is the duty of another committee and another body in the Legislature, but we need the information we are seeking in order to be of assistance to him and to the Legislature in providing constructive criticism and to help him improve the service. It is therefore unfortunate that the present Ombudsman chose not to provide that kind of information.
Members of the committee also feel that the Ombudsman is an office that is looked up to in the province. It is therefore unfortunate that he chose to be indiscreet in certain hiring practices. It is unfortunate that he also chose to misrepresent the position of this committee publicly on the CBC.
But we are facing the advent of a new Ombudsman. We look forward to working with that new Ombudsman, and we hope we will be able to do so with a new set of opinions and with a fresh outlook.
On May 29, 1980, my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) moved a motion which read: "That this assembly request the select committee on the Ombudsman to consult with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists and others, if advisable, with a view to reporting to this assembly on ways in which this assembly may act to make its voice heard against political killings, imprisonment, terror and torture."
That was quite an ambitious resolution for a provincial Legislature, but our committee took it seriously and, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will look forward to our report dealing with that. Unfortunately, because of the very heavy load and because of the complexity of this problem, it will appear very shortly in our next report. I can only assure you that this instruction from the House has been taken seriously by your committee, and all members of the committee are very concerned about this particular issue.
In conclusion let me say this. The cases that have been before our committee, the recommendations we are making, are self-evident. I think the fact that all members of all parties have come to an agreement on our recommendations shows that we have taken our responsibilities seriously, and I will not go through each of the cases.
I am particularly concerned, as a member who represents a number of injured workers, about those recommendations dealing very directly with the Workmen's Compensation Board. I can assure members that we have dealt with each of the recommendations, each of the matters brought to our attention by the Ombudsman, in considerable depth, and all of our recommendations deserve the unanimous support of this House.
Once again I congratulate the chairman on his role in presenting an excellent report.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on the ninth report of the select committee on the Ombudsman.
First I would like to take the occasion to thank on behalf of the members of the Legislature all of the members of the select committee for the excellent report they have submitted for our consideration. The amount of work, thought and reflection that went into its creation is evident to anyone who has read the report. I think that all too often we fail to appreciate the dedication and effort we demand of committee members when we charge them with the responsibility of reviewing some policy or agency of government.
There is a well-known definition of a committee. As the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) would no doubt appreciate, it is defined as a group of the unfit appointed by the unwilling to do the unnecessary. A committee is generally thought to be a group of people who meet to keep minutes and waste hours and is seen as the most effective device ever devised for killing time.
Some of my colleagues on the other side, of course, would agree with that. Nevertheless, all kidding aside, I do not want to inflame those people on the other side, so I will just say I was pulling their legs a little.
Interjections.
Mr. Gordon: Just a little. On this evening of elections and so forth I would not want to prolong this debate on the Ombudsman, and, judging by the report, none of those definitions apply in this case. So, Sean, you do not have to worry, even though the people in Sudbury are still wondering about the wild statements you made.
10:20 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I call upon the honourable member to refer to other honourable members by their constituencies.
Mr. Gordon: Fine, it should only take me about 10 minutes to look up the constituency.
The members of the committee have diligently and intelligently carried out the important task assigned to them by this House. I trust we will be able to give this report the serious consideration it so manifestly deserves.
I would personally like to commend the efforts of my colleague the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) who served as chairman of the select committee. The job of chairman is a demanding one. It requires the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon and the ability to keep one's head while all around one are losing theirs.
The member for Leeds obviously possesses these attributes. I congratulate him for a job well done and for having survived the experience in fine form. I would like to say to his spouse, who I notice is in the House tonight, that I make these compliments and say these things because I truly believe he has these attributes.
Referring to the report itself, I was particularly pleased to note that the committee members felt it incumbent upon them to reaffirm their support for and commitment to the principles which have historically shaped the relationship between the Ombudsman and the governmental associations, and the Ombudsman and the Legislature.
We do not see the members sitting on that select committee flip-flopping the way Broadbent has flip-flopped in talking about doing away with those industries that can no longer compete, such as resource industries, saying, "We will tax them into the ground." On the other hand, in Sudbury we have the other New Democrat saying we should subsidize nickel. These contradictory statements on the part of the New Democrats show they are losing their sense of cool, while all around them keep their heads. In bad times, the NDP scuttles for cover.
I share the committee's view and I applaud the fact it took the trouble to remind this House it is vitally important for the credibility, efficiency and integrity of the office of the Ombudsman that these principles continue to govern our relationship in the future.
I would go as far as to say it is imperative it do so if the Ombudsman is to be able to discharge his duties effectively. I suggest the office of the Ombudsman is of even greater importance today than it has been in the past. I am told that the term "ombudsman' has its roots --
Mr. Philip: If the people in Sudbury catch up to you they will deal with you the way they did another turncoat Liberal tonight.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gordon: It is just the brain of -- I will not even say what it is, on the other side there. I am told the term "ombudsman" has its roots in the old Swedish word "ombund" which roughly translated means the power to act for others. This neatly expresses the essence of the ombudsman's role in our society.
The ombudsman is an official intermediary between citizens and government who acts to allay injustice and impersonality of the bureaucracy. It is, as the late Professor Rowat, the foremost Canadian authority on the function of the office of ombudsman, has pointed out, "A novel and uniquely appropriate institution for dealing with the average citizen's complaint of unfair administrative action."
The ombudsman acts to minimize bureaucracy, to protect the citizen from any abuse of administrative power. To do this, at times he even has to bite the hand that feeds him. In today's world, governments --
Mr. Martel: I know. That's why you're biting Inco's hand. They gave you $500, didn't they?
Mr. Gordon: It is rather interesting to watch how happy the two NDP members from Sudbury are when the Inco officials put their names into that nice little bulletin the president of the company puts out. You never see the member for Sudbury in that bulletin. You only see the New Democrats eating out of the hands of Mother Inco. It is such a shame, such a shame indeed.
Mr. Martel: Didn't you get $500 from Inco for your campaign? How much did Inco give you?
The Acting Speaker: I ask the honourable member to keep his remarks to the Ombudsman's report.
Mr. Martel: Why don't you tell the House they gave you $500?
The Acting Speaker: Order. I now call upon the member for Prescott-Russell.
Mr. Boudria: Mr, Speaker, I hate to interrupt such an interesting debate on the --
Mr. Gordon: The way you suck up to Inco is a delight to behold.
Mr. Martel: You can't suck and blow at the same time.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martel: How much did Falconbridge give you?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Sudbury East would like another debate on Sudbury --
Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think we would have a much better debate if all members who were not members of the Ombudsman committee left and allowed us to get on with our report.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Boudria: Mr, Speaker, I would like to keep my comments brief in the hope that we can proceed with the voting on this report tonight. But I want to take a few minutes to indicate that I find it unfortunate that it takes such a long time before the reports of the select committee on the Ombudsman finally come to this Legislature for debate. As a matter of fact --
Mr. Martel: Tell us about Bill 179 and your three positions, Jim.
Mr. Gordon: You're grasping at straws, Elie. You're pathetic.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The members from Sudbury would really do us all a favour if they would hold this kind of discussion outside the House. We are now discussing the Ombudsman's report.
Mr. Boudria: I forget exactly where I was, but I am quite sure I was not discussing Sudbury. I think I was on the report on the Ombudsman.
Mr. Martel: He took three positions on Bill 179.
Mr. Boudria: That could very well be. Someone could have taken 19 positions on Bill 179; and if the committee were sitting at this time, they could explain that. But I hope we can talk about the Ombudsman's report for the next three or four minutes.
As I was saying, I find it unfortunate that it takes such a long time for the reports of our committee to come to the floor of this Legislature. Some of the problems we have had in the past months, particularly relating to what will shortly be the 10th report of the select committee on the Ombudsman, and perhaps even some of the contents of that report, would not even exist if the ninth report had been adopted sooner. I hope the adoption of this ninth report will clarify the authority and the mandate of the select committee on the Ombudsman.
Interjections.
Mr. Boudria: It is unusual for us to listen to the interjections of the member for Sudbury. We listened to his very worthwhile contribution to this debate, but he does not seem to be willing to listen to others.
If I can get one or two minutes of the member's attention, I want to add that I am also concerned that the Legislature last year had not adopted some of the recommendations of the select committee. I think that undermines the office of the Ombudsman somewhat. It is unfortunate the Ombudsman's authority is somewhat watered down when the Legislature tries to become an ombudsman of the Ombudsman.
I want to remind the members of the government party that we think this should be avoided. As a matter of fact, the select committee does not feel it should take on a role of direct supervision over the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman. Rather, we feel our role as a committee is to support the Office of the Ombudsman, to examine and offer constructive criticism to get the best kind of operation from the Office of the Ombudsman which is, as I understand it, a servant of the Legislature.
I am also concerned that ministries sometimes agree to implement a recommendation of the Ombudsman and then just forget about implementing it, hoping that others will forget about it as well. Of particular concern is the Ministry of Health and its failure to implement some of the recommendations pertaining to the Ontario health insurance plan.
10:30 p.m.
In conclusion, I would like to say, as the member who moved the resolution asking for the additional information from the Ombudsman that was later refused, that it was unfortunate those circumstances happened. I had hoped our committee would receive all the information we were looking for in order to assist us in better supporting the Office of the Ombudsman. Obviously, we did not ask for that information in an attempt to approve his budget but rather to include in our report as many improvements as we felt were necessary for future years.
The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate?
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
The Acting Speaker: The government House leader has moved adjournment of the debate. Shall the motion carry?
Mr. Van Horne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: when I began my remarks I asked if the chairman of the committee had moved the adoption of the report and the recommendations contained therein. It was pointed out to me that, when he presented the report initially in the fall of 1981, that was the case. As I understand it, if there is no more debate on this, why should there not --
The Acting Speaker: There might be, and I think that is what has happened. It could be placed on the Order Paper again. By the motion we now have, it would remain on the Order Paper.
Mr. Van Horne: Forever?
The Acting Speaker: No, not forever.
Mr. Van Horne: I am sorry, but I am from Missouri. I have a feeling this is going to sit forever without the recommendations being adopted by the House. I ask the government House leader whether the intention is that it be debated again in another week, for any of the other members who were not able to participate tonight, or that it be put on the shelf forever.
Hon. Mr. Wells: The intention is that it be adjourned tonight and that it be considered again for debate. If I recall correctly, the House leaders talked in terms of continuing the debate on this two weeks from tonight.
The Acting Speaker: The point of order has been clarified. Is it moved that the debate be adjourned?
Mr. Philip: Just for clarification, what the government House leader is saying is that the chairman will move for the adoption of the recommendations two weeks from tonight.
Hon. Mr. Wells: My friends must realize that it has already been moved for adoption. We are now debating the motion for adoption of the report. It may be that, when we approach this as a matter for debate two weeks from today, we may move into committee of the whole and deal with the recommendations clause by clause. That is still a possibility that is under consideration. We are really debating the motion. On the Order Paper it is the motion for adoption of the report.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the debate was adjourned.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Before the House adjourns, I would like to indicate the business for the rest of this week and next.
Tomorrow we will consider estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet in committee of supply. On Monday, November 8, we will conclude the estimates of the Management Board in committee of supply and begin the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. On Tuesday, November 9, in the afternoon and evening, we will be dealing with legislation in committee of the whole House on Bill 127.
On Wednesday, because it has been reported to us that the committees have all decided not to meet, there will be no committee meetings. The House will be adjourned for Remembrance Day, November 11, and will not sit on November 12. Therefore, it will resume sitting on Monday, November 15. At that time, there will be estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. I should also remind members that on November 15 we will begin sitting on Monday evenings.
The House adjourned at 10:34 pm.